Trump Tries to Take $1.7B from Taxpayers for Allies

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Beat with Ari Melber

Episode: Trump Tries to Take $1.7B from Taxpayers for Allies
Date: May 18, 2026
Host: Ari Melber

---

Episode Overview

This episode covers two major stories: the aftermath of a deadly hate crime shooting at a San Diego Islamic center, and a breaking corruption scandal involving President Trump’s reported effort to divert $1.7 billion in taxpayer money to allies, including convicted January 6th insurrectionists. Ari Melber provides analysis and context, featuring insightful commentary and debate with security experts, political analysts, and members of Congress. The episode also revisits new testimony regarding the Jeffrey Epstein prison death and its handling under the Trump DOJ.

---

1. Breaking News: San Diego Islamic Center Shooting

Timestamps: [00:52] — [09:56], [43:43] — [44:56]

Key Discussion Points

• Incident Summary: A deadly shooting occurred at a San Diego Islamic center, with three victims lost (a security guard and two staff) and both suspects—aged 17 and 19—dead from apparent self-inflicted gunshot wounds.
• Authorities' Perspective: Police are investigating the case as a hate crime, citing clear targeting of a religious institution.
• Children’s Evacuation: Many children were present during the shooting but suffered no physical injuries. The evacuation scenes were described as harrowing yet fortunate, serving as a grim reminder of recurring attacks on places of worship and schools.

Security Expert Insights

• Rob d’Amico (Former FBI Supervisor):

  • Security is difficult to guarantee in "any occupied territory like that" ([03:17]).
  • Noted the importance and limitations of deterrents outside such facilities:
    "You have to be vigilant...Everything nowadays is becoming a target, and security is getting harder and harder." ([05:11])
  • Emphasized heroism of those who prevented further entry and tragedy, suggesting the casualties may have stopped a greater loss.

• Michael Feinberg (National Security Analyst):

  • Warned about the "weakest point" always being at the perimeter of protected spaces:
    "You can never fully eliminate a risk, you can mitigate it, you can lessen it, but it’s always going to be there." ([07:04])
  • Observed society’s "inurement to violence" and hesitancy to address policy shortcomings.

• Ari Melber:

  • Reminded listeners that “We are not powerless. We are a civil society,” urging vigilance and community responsibility in the face of targeted violence ([06:40]).

Memorable Quote

"It is extremely outrageous to target a place of worship. People come to the Islamic center to pray, to celebrate, to learn. All the places of worship in our beautiful city should always be protected."
— San Diego Islamic Center's Imam ([43:43])

---

2. The Trump $1.7 Billion “Slush Fund” Scandal

Timestamps: [12:02] — [22:18]; [24:30] — [31:12]

Key Discussion Points

• Scandal Summary: Reporting broke that President Trump intends to create a $1.7 billion fund from taxpayer money for individuals convicted of January 6-related and other politically motivated crimes. This follows the withdrawal of a Trump-initiated $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, seen as a ploy to create a legal pretext for the fund.
• Comparative Corruption:
  • Melber compared this to Watergate, asserting that this involves much larger sums and rewards for physically violent, insurrectionist acts.
    “The nature of the Watergate crimes...compared to this, small sums of money and relatively minor...‘dirty tricks’.” ([12:02])
  • Stressed that Trump did not pardon these individuals during his first term, but is now seeking to both reward and fund them after public condemnation of their acts.

Political and Legal Analysis

• Michael Steele (Former RNC Chair):

  • Expressed shock at Republican silence and Congressional complicity:
    “Crickets from Republicans. Nothing. There’s no concern. They’re ready to give him $1.8 billion. Where’s the congressional role here in reappropriating money?” ([15:29])
  • Pointed out hypocrisy given longstanding GOP criticism of “waste, fraud and abuse”:
    “They’re engaging in the ultimate waste, fraud and abuse on the American people.” ([16:55])

• Ari Melber:

  • Warned the attempt could violate the Constitution’s appropriation clause, 14th Amendment, and potentially qualify as an impeachable “high crime”:
    “If a sitting president can take a billion or more dollars...they could start appropriating their entire separate budget from Congress. Either you have rules...or you don't.” ([22:18])

• Joyce Vance (U.S. Attorney & Legal Analyst):

  • Highlighted multiple legal barriers to Trump’s plan—including potential for Congressional prohibition, the implausibility and conflict-of-interest in “settling” a personal lawsuit he brought as president, and possible violations of the 14th Amendment:
    “If I was running strategy… the first thing I would do is go to Congress and ask them to pass a law that says Trump can’t spend $1.7 billion to do this because Congress has the power of the purse.” ([24:30])
  • Noted that any settlement still requires court oversight and cited concern about DOJ’s candor in the proceedings ([27:55]).

• Melanie Stansbury (Congresswoman):

  • Called out the hypocrisy compared to Trump's prior “drain the swamp” rhetoric:
    “This is the swampiest thing I could possibly imagine. It’s a slush fund for your allies.” ([20:13])
  • Emphasized the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against compensating insurrectionists.

Memorable Quotes

"If you could just hand out money without Congress, you could get up to all kinds of things. And if you can do it for a billion, you could do it for 100 billion."
— Ari Melber ([17:16])

"If the House actually viewed this going forward...if money were given to seditionists, the proud boys...do you think this could be a case for high crime or is it too early to tell?"
— Ari Melber ([30:27])

"Presidents can’t steal from taxpayers, you know, that’s just the bottom line here."
— Joyce Vance ([30:27])

---

3. Legal and Political Fallout

Timestamps: [22:18] — [31:12]

• Legal Mechanisms:
  • Challenges to the move are being mounted in Congress and the courts. Democrats are urging a judge to block it on appropriations and constitutional grounds.
  • Potential for impeachment proceedings exists if the payment goes forward, but depends on "political will" in Congress:
    “Whether or not that changes after the midterms, you know, is perhaps a call to arms for American voters.” — Joyce Vance ([30:27])
• Scholarship and Precedent:
  • No legal precedent for settling a presidential suit in a manner that directly benefits allies with public funds, raising clear conflict of interest and corruption concerns.

---

4. Epstein Prison Death: New Testimony

Timestamps: [31:12] — [42:02]

Key Discussion Points

• New Hearing: Testimony from former Epstein prison guard Tova Noel, considered the last person to see him alive.
• Failures Cited:
  • Recurring theme of "system failure" and incompetence at the MCC jail.
  • Irregular staff “protocol violations”, e.g., failed 30-min inmate checks.
• Special Treatment:
  • Epstein was given “special sheets” and access to a CPAP machine, deviating from standard procedure.
• Financial Questions:
  • Guard received unexplained cash payments prior to Epstein’s death; she claimed these were legitimate overtime earnings but declined to clarify their source under oath.
• Noel's View:
  • Maintained she believed Epstein's death was a suicide; denied awareness of broader conspiracy or intent to harm Epstein in the facility.
• Congressional Skepticism:
  • Congresswoman Stansbury stressed no one has been cleared, and that their priority remains getting “justice for the survivors.”
    “I’m not ready to absolve anyone until we get to the bottom of this story.” ([40:31])

Memorable Quotes

“Ultimately, as he was being prepared for trial, the survivors were denied justice because he was allowed to die in prison.”
— Rep. Melanie Stansbury ([40:31])

“The DOJ and BOP guidelines are designed to prevent inmates from dying in this manner...That itself is a failure.”
— Ari Melber ([41:28])

---

5. Notable and Memorable Moments

Powerful Excerpts

• On Political Violence Funding:

  “It’s a very deliberate effort to fund the shock troops, the militias and the political violence. We have a political violence problem in this country. This is the funding for it.”
  — Ari Melber ([19:44])

• On Congressional Inaction:

  “Congress is not even blinking.”
  — Michael Steele ([18:17])

• On Public Corruption:

  “Congressman Raskin is saying something that actually isn't blue or red, left or right...If a sitting president can take a billion or more dollars...there’s no limit.”
  — Ari Melber ([22:18])

---

6. Segment Timestamps for Key Issues

• Shooting at San Diego Islamic Center: [00:52] — [09:56], [43:43] — [44:56]
• Trump $1.7B Scandal Discussion: [12:02] — [22:18], [24:30] — [31:12]
• Michael Steele on GOP Silence: [15:29] — [19:23]
• Joyce Vance on Legal Challenges: [24:30] — [31:12]
• Congresswoman Stansbury on Epstein Testimony: [34:22] — [42:02]

---

Tone

• The episode maintained Ari Melber’s signature blend of urgent, detailed legal and political analysis, often punctuated by passionate asides and direct challenges to the complacency of officials.
• Expert guests spoke candidly and often critically, with an emphasis on transparency, accountability, and the unprecedented nature of the issues at hand.

---

For Further Listening

This summary captures the core themes and arguments, shedding light on the legal, political, and ethical dilemmas of the moment. It is an essential listen for anyone tracking government accountability, the boundaries of executive power, and the state of political violence in America.

---

Transcript

[Ari Melber]

When I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800-FLOWERS. There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floral authority. Every stem is hand selected by a vetted florist and with same day delivery nationwide, 100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800-flowers to celebrate life's most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

Avoiding your unfinished home projects just because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to.

[Rob d'Amico]

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking

[Ari Melber]

sound from your dryer is.

[Rob d'Amico]

With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one.

[Ari Melber]

You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app.

[Rob d'Amico]

Download today.

[Ari Melber]

Good evening, Omari Melbourne. We are covering this breaking news out of California. The deadly shooting at an Islamic center in San Diego. Officials indicating three victims dead, the security guard and two staff members. The two suspects in this incident are also now dead. Here is some of what we heard just in the prior hour here from the briefing by the local police chief. There is no further threat. Both suspects in this case are deceased. We have three confirmed adults that are deceased at the Islamic center. We began to receive calls from just a couple blocks away that we had more active gunfire. Officers were called to that location where they found a vehicle in the middle of the street with who we believe to be the shooters in this incident, both deceased. Police indicate they view this and are proceeding with investigation on it as a hate crime probe. Given the clear location, the targeting of this religious center. The two suspects are believed to be 17 years old and 19 years old. According to the initial information that's been provided by authorities, they appeared to have both died of what looked like self inflicted gunshot wounds. Now this was a harrowing day. There were many young children inside this Islamic center at the time of the shooting. The scenes of course reminiscent of other terrible days where Americans have watched children, minors, sometimes small children being evacuated from schools. We can tell you as we look at this tonight, none of these kids were hurt. They are now safe. All of the kids are safe. I tell you what got me watching the kids come running out. Just thankful to be alive. I want to bring in our experts Today Joining me now is Rob d', Amico, former FBI supervisor who's done hostage rescue team work and Ms. Now national security analyst Michael Feinberg, who's an intelligence analyst for us. Rob, when you look at this type of incident, what is in your mind about both the problem set because you had this attack and we have this danger, including to children and what did the authorities do? How do you view the response?

[Rob d'Amico]

Yeah, the problem set obviously any school, any occupied territory like that is really tough to secure. I do security assessments all the time and you can have it so that you have so many different things involved to keep these shooters out. But do they work all the time in this case? I think something happened in front of the school security guard was, was deceased there. Two other adults deceased there. They may have stopped these teenagers from getting into the school, which again is heroic, but it's something that you can't always count on. You constantly look at what defenses can you use? How can you mitigate the possibility of someone getting in there? And was that deterrent of them not to get into school? Did they, they, did they encounter the security guard and the other individuals and then figure out they weren't going to get into school and then fled? And then of course they fled. They did supposedly shoot at this landscaper. What that was about I'm not sure but I think the fact that they, they died by self and probably self inflicted gunshot wounds in that street meant they were probably fantasizing that they had an idea to do something in school and that they were going to die in that school. That's a lot how these happen. They have these, these ultimate fantasies. The fact that there are two of them is a bit different. It goes back to some of the school shootings that we've seen. But lately we haven't seen multiple shooters involved in some of these incidents.

[Ari Melber]

And so Rob, your assessment is that while here we have a security guard who gave, you know, these individuals who gave their life, but we often hear about this being deterrent that you have people out front of target locations and that might deter here your assessment is beyond that capacity you actually were able to with tragic loss of life, prevent these individuals from getting in where you think what could have happened, it could have been worse?

[Rob d'Amico]

Oh absolutely. If they were determined and they got in, don't know what security was behind those three individuals, don't know if the, the security guard was armed. You have to always look at that. Some states it's harder to get armed security than others. As we saw in the, in the synagogue that the. The security actually engaged the guy who drove in there. So you have to all look at that and see what happens. Because so many times, like with these, that you have deterrence out there, you have some security in there. And a lot of times it's a. People like we, when we do security assessments, I'll walk up to a door to, say, a company with four coffees in my hand, and I'll pretend I can't get my badge. And someone always opens that door for me. Hopefully. Now, on these school side things that people are understanding, you just don't let someone in because you're a nice person. That harm security. It's one of those things people want to be nice. They don't want to slam a door. They don't want to ask someone for their badge. But in schools now, you really have to look at it and say, look, if someone's trying to get in, you have man traps. Or if they get in one door, they can't get another. Or you don't let people, what we call backpacking to get in happen. So I think those might have worked in this case. But you have to be vigilant. You have to do it all the time. And this just shows that it's everything. Everything nowadays is becoming a target, and security is getting harder and harder because it's so hard to really, truly lock something down and it still be operational.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah. People listening can sometimes feel a sense of hopelessness. What do we all do? Sometimes we talk about larger change in policy. You are reminding folks that we're not powerless. We are a civil society. When people are targeting a mosque, a house of worship, a school, thinking about yourself as part of the civilian team and making those smart choices. I appreciate the point. Michael, your view on all this tonight. Yeah.

[Michael Feinberg]

I want to highlight something that Rob just mentioned, which is that they were outside of the building and serving as a deterrent. And you sort of asked, how is it a deterrent when they can be engaged so readily? And I want to point something else out that's applicable not just to schools, but really to any area we as a society decide needs to be protected. And that is your weakest point, is always going to be the outermost layer of your security coordinate. So think about an airport, for example. It is virtually impossible to do anything violent these days. Once you have passed through the security apparatus, it is a little more difficult to do it at the ticketing gate simply because while you haven't gone through security, there are masses of TSA officers, there are cameras There are dogs trained in certain types of detection, but when you're at the curbside drop off, there's really nothing. And it's a sort of standard design of security that the closer you get to the center, to the potential target, the harder things get. But there is always going to be a point, no matter how well you plan that there is going to be a weak link in that chain. And we saw that tragically today. And it's a good reminder of something that I'm sure Rob remembers very well from his days, too, at the FBI academy when we were taught you can never fully eliminate a risk, you can mitigate it, you can lessen it, but it's always going to be there. And in a society that is unfortunately as inured to violence and unwilling to talk about this as a policy issue, that's something of which we need to remind ourselves of constantly.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah. And Michael, given your intelligence background, your view on what authorities have said and what we know about what appears to be the targeting, of course, showing up at an Islamic center in America right

[Michael Feinberg]

now, I mean, look, I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that some sort of anti Islamic animus was at work here. That's not a definitive statement. These could have been two teenagers out for a sort of thrill kill joyride. And I don't mean that to sound glib. I mean it just could have been nihilistic. And that was the facility they chose. But San Diego is a large city. There are probably hundreds of schools and community centers. And it is a natural question as to why they chose this one. And for that reason, I was glad to hear the chief of police say that they're going to treat it as a hate crime until it's not understood.

[Ari Melber]

And our viewers know we have been on this story here since it broke today. And we will have more updates tonight. Rob d' Amico and Michael Feinberg, thanks to both of you. I will tell folks coming up there some other very big stories. We have Michael Steele and Joyce Vance on them. The Trump crash, a polling disaster for the president while he tries to take over a billion dollars in your tax money and give it to convicts. It is a huge scandal. It is a big story. And Michael's here on that when we're back together in 90 seconds.

[Mathnasium Announcer]

Parents, have you heard your kids say, I'm not a math kid? Well, with Mathnasium, every kid can be a math kid. They customize their math instruction so kids who are struggling are able to catch up and get ahead. And advanced kids are challenged to reach Higher. Mathnasium makes math fun, so kids learn to love it. Parents say that Mathnasium has not only improved their kids grades, it's given them a new level of confidence in math and in school overall. Visit mathnasium.com to find a location near you.

[DSW Announcer]

You know that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price and want to tell everyone about it? Yeah. So do we. Here at Designer Shoe Warehouse. We'll give you something to brag about, like the latest styles from brands you love or the trends everyone's obsessing over, or shoes that make you feel like, well, you. So go ahead, show off a little. Buying shoes that get you and prices that get your budget. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today. DSW let us surprise you.

[Chumba Casino Announcer]

Tyler Redick and Chumba Casino, a winning combination. Another checkered flag for Tyler Redick in 23XI Racing, this time at Cota in the Chumba Casino Toyota Camry. That's three wins this season. Talk about a lucky streak. Chumba Casino, proud partner of Tyler Reddick in 23xi Racing. Play for free at chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Ari Melber]

We are following a huge corruption scandal today. It's one that first broke with ABC News journalists reporting that the President of the United States wants to seize over a billion dollars in your tax money, Wants to seize over a billion dollars in your tax money and give it to convicts, to people who attacked police, to people who have been convicted of violent crimes potentially, or other partisan crimes. We have never seen anything like this in our nation's history. And if you're watching and saying, oh, there's the news again, telling me we're in unprecedented times. Well, yes, we are. The nature of the Watergate crimes, which ultimately expelled Nixon from office, changed our entire approach to political corruption, passed the campaign finance regime. Those involved, compared to this, small sums of money and relatively minor, largely nonviolent political, quote, dirty tricks, they called them. Then here we're talking about funding the people who battered police, tried to assassinate public officials, including Republicans. They openly admitted to it and were convicted of, in some cases, sedition against the United States. Now I'll show you that headline. Over a billion dollars for what they call a fund to those people. Now, this comes after a ploy. And I say that because, as we reported on this last week, these two things are not very related. But this is A classic Trump trick. And I will always level with you about what we're witnessing. Donald Trump filed a lawsuit that was so weak and shaky that the judge said there may not even be the real type of controversy required to have a lawsuit. And under that pressure, he now says he's pulling it. But that's the pretext for now taking taxpayer money. The New York Times reports Trump is trying to free his hand to reach a deal without oversight. Again, moving this out of the courts. Potential recipients include the people who did the insurrection that was so heinous at the time that, remember, Donald Trump was not only impeached for it, but then Trump first term. Trump didn't impeach, pardon those people at the time when he technically had the power. In fact, he said in public at the time that the violence was bad and it was. Now we're being lied to and gaslit. And now he wants to not only reward the people he freed, but fund them in case he might try to do this again. Remember how that news broke.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Some breaking legal news this morning. President Trump has moved to voluntarily withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.

[Ari Melber]

They're creating this massive fund of taxpayer money, outrage by Democrats and a lot of questions from taxpayers for $1.7 billion

fund to pay what a lot of people assume will be largely his friends and allies.

It's the president's personal attorneys negotiating with the attorneys at the irs, the Justice Department and the White House, which are all, of course, under the Trump administration's power. An absolutely astounding development, bigger than Watergate. And as a factual matter, it relates to a far more dangerous, physically violent type of political crime. For this Big Story, I want to bring in Michael Steele. We booked him specifically to discuss this problem. He is, of course, our colleague hosts the Weeknight. He's also been the chair of the rnc. So in a time where people claim that these things are just red and blue, they're not. They're not. You, as someone who served as a Republican, were never obviously affiliated with anything like this. How do you view this scandal?

[Michael Steele]

Republicans that I worked with at the time would be falling over themselves finding microphones to condemn it. Certainly if Barack Obama or Joe Biden came out and said, I want to create a billion dollar fund for people that crimed here in America and just give it to them, they'd lose their, you know what. But I thought the interesting thing about your intro was the outrage from the Democrats, questions from the American people, crickets from Republicans. Nothing. There's no concern. They're ready to give him $1.8 billion. They're ready to sign off on it. Where's the congressional role here in reappropriating money that they have designated for other things? Where's the money come from? I mean, there's a budget line for everything that we spend, supposedly, even when we spend extra. There's a line, there's a bill, there's legislation. Where is all of that? I really wish these damned Republicans would get off their Trump hiney and focus on the country and the fact that you have spent well more in the one year that Donald Trump has been in office than Joe Biden did in his last couple of years. Right. So we're spending trillions of dollars. You're proposing a $1.4 trillion budget for the Defense Department.

[Rob d'Amico]

Why?

[Michael Steele]

We're at a war that Donald Trump created, spending hundreds of billions of dollars a day. So all these Republicans who beat the hell out of Democrats for years over the spending, the big government programs, all of the waste, fraud and abuse. Y' all heard that term before, right? What are they engaging in? The ultimate waste, fraud and abuse on the American people.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, yeah. And we still care about the Constitution. Some people don't. If you could just hand out money without Congress, you could get up to all kinds of things. And if you can do it for a billion, you could do it for 100 billion. And there's either a legal limit in our constitutional order or there is not.

[Michael Steele]

No, there is not.

[Ari Melber]

Or there is not. And so if they go forward with this right now, as always, they're claiming and testing, they've got a sham lawsuit, there's a normizen, and others are suing. They're gonna test this in court. So it could still get gummed up in the courts. But what they're gonna try to do is take this money and give it as to these convicts. And if they're doing that in the spirit of overthrowing future elections, it could be a part of a crime. And some people say, well, he could re pardon or pardon these people again. But let me show you this. It also could be a high crime. I just want to read.

[Michael Steele]

Sure.

[Ari Melber]

The Constitution says the president can be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Is this something that you think a serious Congress would take seriously as potentially impeachable?

[Michael Steele]

If the money goes to Congress, A serious Congress would. I don't. I'm not hanging my hat on that hook. I appreciate the constitutional principle and the norm that it tries to establish, but that requires a branch of government that's willing to engage the times that Trump has been impeached, particularly the last time the stopgap was the Senate. And the fact that Mitch McConnell could have done the right thing then to avoid all of this now. But the grift in the game and the sort of protection of the institution, such as it was at the time, outweighed the Constitution constitutional requirement that you do what you are obligated to do, and that is to convict for the high crime of engaging in insurrection, invoking it, stoking it. Now we're at a point where the, where this president is prepared to shave off 1.7, $1.8 billion of American taxpayer dollars and Congress is not even blinking.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah. And give it to whom? Give it to them.

[Michael Steele]

They're going to give convicts. And what does this say for the future? What if a next presidential administration decides to all these pardons? Here's the problem. You pay this money now to these folks. What are they going to do? Their loyalty is baked in and so they will be available to engage in all kinds of nefarious activities starting this fall and into the future.

[Ari Melber]

It's a very deliberate effort to fund the shock troops, the militias and the political violence. We have a political violence problem in this country. This is the funding for it.

[Michael Steele]

Evidence today's by today's shooting.

[Ari Melber]

Michael, always good to have you. And important on this topic for sure. I want to fit in a break later. There is new testimony from a key Epstein prison guard who also received some suspicious payments during the Trump DOJ's first term. We also look at the blowback to this slush fund with Joyce Vance.

[Melanie Stansbury]

This is so extraordinary that he ran on draining the swamp. And this is the swampiest thing I could possibly imagine. It's a slush fund for your allies. This is so extraordinary that he ran on draining the swamp. And this is the swampiest thing I could possibly imagine is a slush fund for your allies.

[DSW Announcer]

It feels so wrong and it's just

[Melanie Stansbury]

disgusting and it's unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment specifically provides that the government cannot provide compensation to insurrectionists.

[Ari Melber]

Outrage over the story we've been covering that finally broke here today after leaks last week that Trump, through his doj, was preparing to try to loot taxpayer money to spend it on the convicts who did January 6th and other types of people tied up with MAGA. This is the story Michael Steele and I were discussing and we discussed the problems with it, whether it's Unconstitutional or illegal is obviously not yet been tested in court. But there are multiple avenues. It could be impeachable. It could be abuse of the appropriations power. It could be the 14th amendment. House Democrats are acting on this. They're urging a judge to prevent it from happening. They argue that this would force the American people to put money into these pockets and the pockets of Trump's family and friends. They warn that it creates a specter of corruption unparalleled in American history. Some Democrats also argue, and you heard this there in that quote, from the view that this could violate the 14th Amendment because of its reference to insurrection.

[Rob d'Amico]

To the extent that he wants to give a million dollars to each of 1600 pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, we think that that's an unconstitutional use of money. Only Congress has the power to appropriate money. And Congress never voted on creating this $1.7 billion political slush fund at the Department of Justice. And Congress would never pass that. There's no get that through Congress. So this is just an invention on his part.

[Ari Melber]

Fact check. True. Congressman Raskin is saying something that actually isn't blue or red, left or right. If a sitting president can take a billion or more dollars, as we discussed earlier tonight, then there's no limit. They could take 10 billion, they could take 100 billion. They could start appropriating their entire separate budget from Congress. Either you have rules and a constitutional appropriation power, the so called power of the person in Congress, or you don't. So that's one thing. That's the Congress money thing. Then there's the 14th amendment thing. There's the impeachable defense thing. There's also the question about whether courts would view this as a lawful exercise of DOJ's powers to compensate individuals. I mean, the lawsuit I mentioned, he was a ploy, but it was a lawsuit by one individual against the government that he also runs Trump against the government. Compensating a bunch of other people doesn't necessarily fit with any precedent that we're aware of regarding how to settle a case. And this case has been so absurd that Trump himself muse about the kind of existential or unlawful nature of suing yourself because you run the IRS when you're the sitting president.

[Rob d'Amico]

It's very interesting. I have another one where, you know,

[Ari Melber]

I've personally won the Mar a Lago

[Rob d'Amico]

break incentive, and I have to work out some kind of a settlement. I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself now with the country. It's interesting because I'm the One that makes a decision. Right. And that decision would have to go across my desk. And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're paying yourself in damages?

[Ari Melber]

No, people don't have those cases because it's a conflict. It's self dealing. It is, according to many experts, corrupt. U.S. attorney and Ms. Now legal analyst Joyce Vance is here. Joyce, we talked about the outrage of this, the problem of incenting political violence. I turn to you strictly here now on the legality. There's more than one legal challenge avenue. But do you see this plan as likely constitutional and lawful or not?

Well, I think I'll sign on with the folks who view it as corrupt, Ari, which is to say that it's not legal. And the question is, who reaches that conclusion and how do we get there? There? You know, you've already mentioned Congress. If I was running strategy in a situation like this, the first thing I would do is go to Congress and ask them to pass a law that says Trump can't spend $1.7 billion to do this because Congress has the power of the purse. They can prohibit him from doing this. And so it's their obligation in the first instance. But I think you're more interested in legality in the courts, and that's a great place to start because Trump takes the position that as long as he moves to dismiss this case, that's the end of it. It's over and done with. And although under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the case is in a posture where he could dismiss it, he's not really talking about dismissal here. He's talking about settlement, which is a somewhat different thing. And you've just paid played the clip where he talks about being on both sides of the V. Right. In essence, this case is Trump vers Trump an inherent conflict of interest. And it's not even a good lawsuit. The judge in this case, it was filed in the Southern District of Florida. They clearly hoped to get AEN Cannon, but they didn't. The judge, Judge Williams, actually expressed concerns about that. And so she appointed three highly respected amici. A former Solicitor General, a former judge asked them to say what they viewed as the merits of the case. They identified multiple reasons that it was a non starter, it was brought too late under the statute of limitations. For one thing, there were no traceable damages, no proof that $10 billion or $1.7 billion were actually at stake. And Trump's argument was that because of the release of the tax information, he'd suffered reputational damage. But you know, he was still re elected on the one hand, and there are plenty of other things that could have caused him reputational damage, including January 6th. So there are so many problems with this case. I think the right place to start is to let the judge consider whether she's willing to dismiss it and whether she's willing to let it be settled on these terms.

Right. And the, the Trump lawsuit looks like a ploy. They went to court creating this potential or fake controversy. Then they ran into headwinds and tried to get out of court. And I was speaking to a lawyer today who made the analogy that the judge still oversees. Yes, settlement is a quite common way to end a civil controversy, but it's a court overseen process. And if a plaintiff who files a case then seeks to drop it and the judge finds out this lawyer analogized that, that there was coercion or there was violence or there was a kidnapping, saying you have to drop the case, well, the court would still have a very vested interest in making sure that there was lawful regular order and not some other problem. So what do you think of the doj, which in any other administration is supposed to hold the line on these things, joining in what might be a nefarious abuse of that civil court process to begin with?

Well, it's deeply concerning. You know, we have not seen all of the moving papers, I don't believe yet. But it does have the appearance of DOJ saying we want to dismiss this case with prejudice and then only subsequently creating this judgment fund. Now, look, they happened close together in time, and the judge isn't obligated to put on blinders and ignore the settlement fund. But the fact that they did not disclose that to her up front is very troubling. They're litigating in the 11th Circuit. That's my circuit. We take candor to the court very seriously here. And if in fact the appearance bears out into reality and DOJ was less than candid with the court, there should absolutely be consequences.

I'm curious your view of. I said this is bigger than Watergate because the sums are larger and it relates to now convicted political crimes. The president has the lawful power to pardon. History may look at it as one of the darkest stains ever to pardon the attacks on police, the sedition against the United States. I mean, we'll have a long time, we hope, as a country, if our republic holds, as Ben Franklin would say, to make sense of all that but those were gray violent crimes against the United States, the storming of the Capitol, the calls to hang Mike Pence that rival and are larger, I think in any measurable way, certainly legally more felonious than the even terrible issues in Watergate. And so when Watergate was reaching its actual conclusion in the inner branch tension between the Congress and the White House, you had bipartisan group of lawmakers saying they would impeach and convict over this. And so I say it's larger. We'll see what happens in the midterms because we know what the current Congress is like. But here's again for the country and the viewers tonight what the Constitution says. The president shall be removed, impeached or convicted for the treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That's a process that starts in the House. As people remember, if the House actually viewed this going forward, for example, if money were given to seditionists, the proud boys, to the people who attack police with an ongoing effort to incent or encourage future such violence, combined with Donald Trump's reported promise to pardon everybody in the future, do you think this could be a case for high crime or is it too early to tell?

Well, look, it absolutely would be qualifying for impeachment for all of the reasons that you've suggested. But because presidents can't steal from taxpayers, you know, that's just the bottom line here. This is the president taking your money, my money, all of your viewers money, and doling it out to people who have supported him, to his friends. And that, you know, almost seems by definition to be how banana republics operate, not how the United States of America operates. But the impeachment question is one of political will. Congress has not shown that will so far during Trump's time in office. Whether or not that changes after the midterms, you know, is perhaps a call to arms for American voters.

Yeah. Joyce, sober as always, relevant even to the the circuit that we're discussing. Joyce, thank you so much for joining us. I'll tell folks. Coming up, we turn to another story, one of the last guards to see Epstein alive testifying today we have that story. With new questions swirling about Bill Barr and the Trump DOJ's oversight during what were Epstein's final days. Donald Trump cannot keep this Epstein scandal out of the news or out of Congress's purview even with what you see a lot of other things going on today. House Oversight Committee probing those last Epstein days, which were under the oversight of the Trump DOJ and Bill Barr, they heard From Tova Noel, that's a former corrections officer who was crucial in the period leading up to Epstein's death. This was private testimony. Noel had already told federal investigators, as we've mentioned in some of our prior reporting, that she believes, based on her service there, that she was the last person to see Epstein alive. She did. She says inmate counts around 10pm after that check. She and a colleague, though, didn't do the other required checks. And as we showed you in this timeline where we meticulously used prior government information and newly revealed materials from the Epstein files, there were a lot of questions on how the Trump DOJ and Bill Barr's team dealt with what were those final days questions of negligence or worse, before Epstein was allowed to do something that inmates are not supposed to be able to do in custody, which is allegedly take their own life or die. Then another protocol violation they failed to do. Required overnight checks. The inmate counts every 30 minutes, which was part of the protection and the whole point of having him in the special unit. Instead, he's alone and unmonitored for eight hours. This new law famously forced out the secret internal documents from the same probe showing other views within the FBI about the last person near Epstein's cell. And that night, a blurry orange figure appears. The original FBI log calls it. That flash of orange could possibly be an inmate. And note that careful description because then the DOJ review of the same footage changes it to write, quote, inmates are currently on lockdown. It's possible someone is carrying inmate linen up the stairs. Was that a good faith mistake or a malicious cover up? DOJ indicted the guards on duty that night for lying about the inmate checks. That never happened. That's a big deal. It added pressure though for those guards to cooperate in the probe. And the DOJ later dropped those same charges. That's some of what we've been detailing. Congresswoman Stansbury, who is attending this high stakes interview today, does describe Noel's forthcoming saying they focused on the details of the night, some of which I touched on there and those questions and also discussing the loss of her job. My takeaway is two things.

[Michael Steele]

One, the system once again failed survivors.

[Ari Melber]

It was clear incompetence and just a lack of oversight.

[Melanie Stansbury]

She does feel like her termination was unfair and that had it not been Jeffrey Epstein, she would not have been fired.

[Ari Melber]

She didn't do her job, but it seemed like people weren't doing their job generally. At the mcc, we're now joined by Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansberry on that critical House Oversight Committee welcome back. What do you think Congress learned today that's important in a series of events that we and other outlets have documented showed incompetence failures, if not worse from the then Trump DOJ overseeing that prison?

[Melanie Stansbury]

Well, I certainly agree with my colleague from Virginia, which is that the system over and over again has failed survivors. And you know, this was the first time that We've heard from Ms. Noel about her firsthand account of what happened that night. She herself stated in that interview that she does believe that it was a suicide. But she did say that there were irregularities, not just that evening, but in general, that there was understaffing, that she and her colleagues had been working long hours and doubles, that they had not done the normal checks. But my takeaway from the interview was not that it was unusual per Epstein. In fact, I asked her that question, was there anything weird about that night or unusual about how the situation was handled? And she said no. But it's clear that the system was not well managed and that she feels in her opinion that she was terminated as a. And you know, indicated that it was unfair, had it been any other inmate, the way the system was being managed, that she would not have been fired.

[Ari Melber]

Well, I mean of all the issues here, I don't think whether the guards were sanctioned in the right way is high on anyone's priority list. They failed to do the checks. The night they failed to do the checks, he's found dead. There were, as you know, allegations of the shredded documents that have now been proven. She. She may or may not have had visibility on that. But again that goes to what was going on inside the prison. There were these payments. I wanted to ask you about this, that apparently you and your colleagues asked about financial payments she got in these increments before the Epstein death. She said that was from working overtime. Did that all scan to you? And do you think that she and others could shed any light on how Epstein got special treatment? Because while if it were chess guards are like pawns and the accountability doesn't stop with them. But I've read the IG report. Epstein was granted these exceptions. He was using the phone call. He had a final phone call leading up to the night of his death that was on the non recorded line, which was only allowed because a different guard I should mention, but a guard walked him to be allowed that. I mean there's a lot of these type of problems. So your view on. On those issues and her credibility today?

[Melanie Stansbury]

Yeah, I mean, I'm only here to report on the actual deposition that I sat in parts of today. I can't speak to the broader management of the prison itself, but what I can say is that she did validate that there was special treatment of Jeffrey Epstein. She said that he was given access to a cpap, that he had special sheets, and that all indications were that he was being given special treatment inside the jail. But I specifically asked, Asked her whether she felt that there were those inside the prison, either in the management or in the guards or other prisoners who wish Jeffrey Epstein harm, and she said no. She also talked about witnessing the body as it was removed. So, you know, there were absolutely irregularities in the prison, but I don't think that of the members and staff that were in the room, we walked away with the impression that outside of. Of just blatant incompetence and mismanagement, that there was a larger conspiracy at hand. Based on her testimony, it doesn't mean that there wasn't. But based on what we witnessed in the room today, now, with respect to these payments, what she stated in the room was that they were cash payments that she deposited herself. She said multiple times under oath that they had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. But I offered her the opportunity at the end of the day to clarify the source of the payments, and she declined. So.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, so what. What would cash payments be? I mean, it doesn't. It doesn't sound like something that would be connected to normal employ.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Yeah, I mean, I think there were other parts of the interview that happened while I was not in the room in which she clarified that she was working potentially other jobs and overtime. But. But like I said during the portion of the interview where I asked if she wanted to clarify for the record, she declined to do so.

[Ari Melber]

So.

Understood. The other issue I've discussed with some of your colleagues on the committee, and we have you here, is that Congress sort of boosted or validated the questions around Epstein's death through the transparency law, as you know, because it specifically asked for more information pertaining to his death. Doesn't ask for that about every other inmate under the sun. It suggested that maybe there was more questions. Since that time, this note has been discovered, which the New York Times treated as credible, that it sounded like things that Epstein had said in private correspondence that it would be hard to fake, that it came out of the litigation regarding another inmate, as you probably know, and I'm reminding our viewers. And so I'm curious, since the passage of that law to now, does it look to you like it's more credible that ultimately the original story is the true story that he did take his own life, even with these other issues we've discussed, just less credible or. Or to you, about the same. Because obviously, it matters a lot if the public thinks there might have been foul play or not. And we all know the skepticism around this case for multiple issues.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Yeah. I mean, this is the first witness that we've had in front of the committee to discuss the details of his last night in prison. So I can't speak to the broader set of circumstances, and certainly we haven't had enough eyewitnesses, management, and review of other documents associated with his incarceration to really be able to answer this question. And so, personally, I'm a facts person. I come out of the science world. I'm not ready to confirm that anyone's story is true, because everything we learn about this case seems to indicate that Jeffrey Epstein evaded justice for decades, that there was a large group of individuals within the federal government that were shielding him from accountability, and that ultimately, as he was being prepared for trial, the survivors were denied justice because he was allowed to die in prison. And so I'm not ready to absolve anyone until we get to the bottom of this story and we get justice for the survivors.

[Ari Melber]

Understood. And on that point that you mentioned is one thing that is incontrovertible. The DOJ and BOP guidelines are designed to prevent inmates from dying in this manner. That includes, obviously, suicide and potential foul play or violence. And so that itself is a failure, which you don't have to go down any other extra path to find that. We have that now. We're, of course, trying to learn more. There's been a lot going on today, but you guys had this big investigative finding and hearing, and we wanted to get hear from you. So thank you, Congresswoman.

[Melanie Stansbury]

Yeah, thank you.

[Ari Melber]

Thank you. We'll be right back.

[Chumba Casino Announcer]

Beth and Rip are back in a new series, Dutton Ranch, streaming on Paramount. Plus, Kelly Reilly and Cole Hauser return. And this time, they're taking on Texas as Beth and Rip begin to build a life together. Peace will have to wait as they face corruption, danger, and a ruthless rival ranch willing to protect its secrets at all costs. Legacy is a beautiful thing, but only if it survives. Dutton Ranch, starring Cole Hauser, Kelly Reilly, Annette Bening, and Ed Harris. Now streaming on Paramount.

[Mathnasium Announcer]

Parents, have you heard your kids say, I'm not a math kid? Well, with Mathnasium, every kid can be a. They customize their math instruction so kids who are struggling are able to catch up and get ahead. And advanced kids are Challenged to reach higher. Mathnasium makes math fun, so kids learn to love it. Parents say that Mathnasium has not only improved their kids grades, it's given them a new level of confidence in math and in school overall. Visit mathnasium.com to find a location near you.

[DSW Announcer]

At DSW, we ask the important questions like what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an rsvp. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price of course. Get ready to get ready with Designer Shoe Warehouse. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today and let us surprise you.

[Ari Melber]

It is extremely outrageous to target a place of worship. People come to the Islamic center to pray, to celebrate, to learn. All the places of worship in our beautiful city should always be protected. San Diego Islamic Center's Imam speaking there just after that deadly shooting. An update on what we know at this hour. This is the story that began our broadcast tonight. Three victims dead. That includes two who worked at the school and a security guard. Police say the suspected shooters are dead from apparently self inflicted wounds. They're believed to be 17 and 19 years old. There were, as we showed you, young children inside this Islamic center at the time of the shooting here. They were seen during the evacuation. They are now safe. That is the latest. We will keep covering this and what authorities brief and detail over the course of the night on Ms. Now you're watching Ms. Now. That does it for us. The weeknight is up next. Yo, it's Jay USO from WWE and I'm Jimmy uso. Chumba Casino and WWE are hyped for the biggest event of the summer, SummerSlam.

[Rob d'Amico]

I know I can't wait. There's nothing better to do while we're waiting than playing Chumba Casino. Sign up today and you could win a VIP experience with Chumba Casino and with WWE for SummerSlam.

[Ari Melber]

So what are you waiting for? Play Chumbo Casino and enter for your chance to win.

[Rob d'Amico]

Let's jumble deep.

[Chumba Casino Announcer]

No purchase necessary.

[Michael Steele]

VGW Group void.

[Chumba Casino Announcer]

We're prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jumbo Casino.